I was wondering what you guys thought about the idea of moving one of our Top 4 defensemen for a legitimate Top 6 Forward?

Not really sure if I have anything specific in mind, but was wondering if you agreed with this overall line of thought.

Moving one of Bieksa, Edler, Garrison, or Hamhuis, for a legit Top 6 Forward (a guy like Thomas Vaneck perhaps? If the Sabres decide to shop him later in the year). In any of these examples, lets say that said defenseman agrees to waive NTC/NMC.

Obviously - losing a Top 4 defenseman would be risky, but having a playmate for Kesler would arguably turn out to be a net gain overall.

Uncle dans leg wrote:Steve Ott. He would be ideal to compliment Kesler IMO

Ott would be a great pick-up, but I see him as more of a shut down guy than a guy that can prolifically put pucks in the net.

Since we're talking Buffalo, I do wonder if the Sabres would be willing to move both Ott and Vaneck at some point this year. As it pertains to the Canucks, Ott would be the perfect replacement for Manny Malhottra. Vaneck could be what Mikael Samuelson was for us in 2010.

The Brown Knight wrote:I was wondering what you guys thought about the idea of moving one of our Top 4 defensemen for a legitimate Top 6 Forward?

Not really sure if I have anything specific in mind, but was wondering if you agreed with this overall line of thought.

Moving one of Bieksa, Edler, Garrison, or Hamhuis, for a legit Top 6 Forward (a guy like Thomas Vaneck perhaps? If the Sabres decide to shop him later in the year). In any of these examples, lets say that said defenseman agrees to waive NTC/NMC.

Obviously - losing a Top 4 defenseman would be risky, but having a playmate for Kesler would arguably turn out to be a net gain overall.

They might not be the best top-six in the league but, when healthy, individually they are all capable to produce at or more than 20 goals. Health is the main issue more than the ability to score with the existing top-six. Personally, I would rather MG focuses more on the bottom six than the top-six.

Uncle dans leg wrote:Steve Ott. He would be ideal to compliment Kesler IMO

Ott would be a great pick-up, but I see him as more of a shut down guy than a guy that can prolifically put pucks in the net.

Since we're talking Buffalo, I do wonder if the Sabres would be willing to move both Ott and Vaneck at some point this year. As it pertains to the Canucks, Ott would be the perfect replacement for Manny Malhottra. Vaneck could be what Mikael Samuelson was for us in 2010.

From a cap hit perpsective, it's almost the exact same (give or take, $500,000-$600,000 that we'd have to take if we made a deal like this).

Sabres get a top 4 defenseman and depth up front, while the Canucks get a legit top 6 winger and a shut down center.

At some point in the future, if Kassian further develops his game and becomes a legit top 6 calibre player, you can then move a guy like Alex Burrows for a top 4 defenseman.

As bad as Edler has been, there will be a big hole at the backend with him traded. Besides, Higgins and Hansen are signed to a cap-friendly deal to stay here. Why would MG turn around and trade them to a rebuilding team?

Uncle dans leg wrote:Steve Ott. He would be ideal to compliment Kesler IMO

Ott would be a great pick-up, but I see him as more of a shut down guy than a guy that can prolifically put pucks in the net.

Since we're talking Buffalo, I do wonder if the Sabres would be willing to move both Ott and Vaneck at some point this year. As it pertains to the Canucks, Ott would be the perfect replacement for Manny Malhottra. Vaneck could be what Mikael Samuelson was for us in 2010.

I wouldn't do that trade. Steve Ott, as you say, is a Manny replacement. I'd sooner spend fewer assets to acquire a great 3rd line center that can pick up 30-35 points than give up so much for an Eastern Conference scorer like Vanek. Especially when both Ott and Vanek only have 1 year left on their deals. Higgins, Hansen and Edler are all signed to cap-friendly long-term deals that take up a few of their prime years.

They reason Samuellson and Malhotra were so valuable was due to their awesome cap hits. They gave MG so much flexibility to do things like grab Ehrhoff on a salary dump.

With the (relative) depth of top6 forwards (when healthy and not suspended), I think the more pressing need is a Malhotra clone than a sniper.

I think there is a good chance one or both of Horvat and Shinky make the team next year. If so we will have the makings of 4 solid lines with that added scoring. No need to move out a top 4 for one year of a fix.

Hockey Widow wrote:I think there is a good chance one or both of Horvat and Shinky make the team next year. If so we will have the makings of 4 solid lines with that added scoring. No need to move out a top 4 for one year of a fix.

Right now, we have a mobile, versatile, two-way top four. Right now, we could survive if one of those four goes down to injury. If we only had three of these guys, that luxury would be gone. We’d also have to lean a lot more on Tanev, Stanton and Corrado, which would not be an ideal situation for any of these guys from a development perspective.

The only way I consider moving one of our top four is if a deal comes in that absolutely blows our socks off (unlikely), or if the team completely falls apart, Torts is an absolute failure, the Sedins walk and it’s clearly time for a total rebuild and house cleaning (also unlikely).

Could we use top six help? Yes and the same could be said for 20+ other teams. I’m willing to be a bit patient and see if we have something in Booth, Hansen, Kassian and Schroeder. Some good seasons from these guys and a lot of our problems solve themselves. Three of these guys clearly were not AV guys, and the change in coaching could have a big effect.

Oh, and also, only Edler would really get us the kind of top six help that would “put us over the top” so to speak. A 27 year old big bodied, two-way defenseman on a cap friendly deal would be a huge loss and not something we could fill via free agency.

herb wrote:Right now, we have a mobile, versatile, two-way top four. Right now, we could survive if one of those four goes down to injury. If we only had three of these guys, that luxury would be gone.

Great post and I pretty much agree with what you said.

My original line of thought was that we do make a trade for Vaneck and Ott (while giving them Edler, Higgins,and Hansen in return), and then moving a guy like Burrows for a Top 4 d-man if someone like Kassian shows growth.

If not Burrows, you could maybe move Booth for an over-priced defenseman in a 'crap for crap' type deal where the other team accepts a bad contract because having a bad contract up front suits their needs slightly better than having a bad contract on the back-end. (not sure if this meets the criteria.......but maybe a David Booth for John Michael Liles type deal). Ultimately - you then still have 4 defensemen that could play reasonably well in a Top 4 role.

Unless that "top six forward" is a center, I don't see the need. As it stands between Sedin, Burrows, Higgins, Hansen, Booth and Kassian we have six guys who can at least moonlight in one of four spots and if you take the "by definition there are 180 'top six' forwards in the league" view I'd say we've got five wingers that fit the description for sure and Kassian will likely show flashes too.

Yeah it'd be great to add a dynamic scorer to this group but the major problem I in our division/conference/thing is that Joe Pavelski's line and Jarred Stoll's line are going to feast on a pretty bad mismatch down the middle, unless Jordan Schroeder is leaps and bounds better than last year or Mike Santorelli can play 78 games plus the playoffs like he's played the last four.

Hell even Detroit has Helm, St Louis has Steen or Berglund, etc..

We need to be able to roll three lines that can contribute at both ends of the ice without relying on mismatches to do so, right now the main obstacle to that is having three healthy centers.

I think Henrik and Kesler are excellent for top 6 centers.......unless I'm missing your point?

Hence, why I like the idea of trading for both a top notch Top 6 winger ( to play with Kesler to give us two legit scoring lines), AND a legit shut down center........one that is of the calibre of a Jarret Stoll or a Joe Pavelski from the examples you gave.

Since Buffalo might be exploring different options moving forward, I figured that perhaps Thomas Vaneck and Steve Ott would fit our needs.

Ott could be our answer to Stoll/Pavelski, while Vaneck would definitely gives us two legit lines. His presence alone would make Kesler's job easier, and in effect, make the Sedins' job easier.

Now don't get me wrong - I definitely understand the danger in moving one of our top 6 defensemen for a deal like this (in this example, let us say that Buffalo accepts a deal involving Edler, Hansen, and Higgins). However - if a guy like Kassian develops over the course of the year into a legit top 6 player, you could move Burrows for a Top 4 calibre defenseman.

If Kassian doesn't develop as hoped however, you could try and move David Booth for an overpaid (yet reasonably decent) defenseman that wouldn't look too far out of place playing top 4. A "crap for crap" deal where two bad contracts are exhanged (I.e. Booth for a guy like John Michael Liles).

Given how the Canucks have performed in their last 3 playoff series', I think it's safe to say that this team needs scoring.....and more specifically, needs secondary scoring in order to take enormous pressure off of the twins.